1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Aust v England - it was a try IMHO

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Daddycool08, Nov 3, 2014.

  1. Daddycool08

    Daddycool08 Well-Known Member

    +372 /4
    That last minute 'no-try' was a try in my opinion.

    The pom placed his finger on the ball and it was grounded.

    Put it this way if that was an NRL Manly game and we were 'robbed' by that decision we'd be up in arms about it.

    Not that I like the Poms and don't really care about 4 nations but I had a spare hour or so so I watched the game.
  2. Cliffymagic

    Cliffymagic Active Member

    +283 /2
    Inglis touched the ball while it was on the ground just before , knockin it forward a bit. If they deemed the pom forced it, then so did inglis first. Shoula been a line drop out .
    • Like Like x 3
    • mozgrame

      mozgrame Well-Known Member

      +5,134 /51
      No it wasn't! lol

      That's a wolf creek 2 reference. Turns out Mick Taylor was the video ref yesterday.


    • SeaEagle21

      SeaEagle21 Well-Known Member Premium Member

      +1,453 /22
      I thought it was a try but it could have gone anyway it was so close. Though it would have been sweet to lose that game off the back of a poor defensive play by the best fullback in the world Inglis
    • Stevo

      Stevo Well-Known Member

      +1,401 /56
      No try for 3 reasons.

      Zero downward pressure. The ball hit the ground and it was on its way up again when his finger touched it. If he downward pressure on the ball it at least would have changed the direction the ball was going but it didnt. Which leads me to the second point.....

      Zero control. Enough said

      Zero try celebration. If Hall had scored the try that beat the Kangaroos they would have been a try celebration. There wasn't.

      I also don't go for the "Inglis grounded it" argument. He had as much control as the English player did. In fact, you can accidently ground the ball in goal and play on. You have to intentionally ground it. Inglis swiped at it to knock it dead. He wasn't trying to ground it.
      • Like Like x 1
      • EagleFromMay1967

        EagleFromMay1967 Sky Punching : send them High as the Clouds

        +1,372 /49
        Nah, -- think the side on makes it look better than it was.
        Touching it is not control. Touching it is not 'downward pressure'. The ball was bouncing up. It was correctly ruled, as was Jennings try at the same end.

        I really enjoyed the Kiwis slaughtering us, but when it comes to the Poms, i really hate them, and Aussies must win that. Obviously DCE played well, and didnt shirk the defensive work. But the Kangaroos would have a much better chance if more Manly players had been playing :)
      • EagleRock40

        EagleRock40 Well-Known Member

        +211 /4
        Downward pressure in the laws is part of the hand or forearm in contact with the ball on the ground. Last time I checked, finger is part of the hand therefore should have been a try. He did not have control, but I'm pretty sure the control part was taken out of the laws this year.
        Going by those laws though, there's an argument to say Inglis grounded it first, which is also fair enough.
      • Daddycool08

        Daddycool08 Well-Known Member

        +372 /4
        When I watched it I felt that Inglis didn't want to do the heavy work he just wanted to get the glory.

        Maybe he was just a bit off colour. He didn't do much diving either. Probably just out of form. :D
      • The Who

        The Who Well-Known Member Premium Member

        +7,258 /173
        Seriously, to know that there are some among us who believe this was a try confirms how screwed up rugby league has become.
        • Like Like x 5
        • jbb/james

          jbb/james Well-Known Member Premium Member

          +1,496 /35
          You know what, after 40 odd year of watching the footy i have no idea if its a try or not, what rule is being used. In recent times its been a try, its been a no try. I have no idea anymore. My instinct says it shouldnt be a try but interpretation this, downward that, impact, seperation.

          Who knows. Either way it was a poor spectacle and proof that with the current admin international footy will be on the slide
        • Loobs

          Loobs Scott Fulton’s 5th Cousin Premium Member

          +9,080 /306
          It's a try if it was Bulldogs v anyone.
        • SeaEagle21

          SeaEagle21 Well-Known Member Premium Member

          +1,453 /22
          Normally I would say no try, but we have seen some pretty suspect tries similar to the no try yesterday being given. Just goes to show that it is more a lottery Than a clearly defined ruling. At full speed wouldn't even consider it but under slow motion it looked like it could go either way.

          Anyway probably worked out well with an Aussie on field ref coupled with an Aussie video ref ;)
        • lsz

          lsz Well-Known Member Staff Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

          +4,851 /102
          I was watching the game without sound (most likely the best watch to watch 9) and could not believe they looked at it that much

          I have always thought that if you can not decide within a couple of replays then it should be no try i.e. look at it from a few angles and decide rather than slowing it down frame by frame
        • Mark from Brisbane

          Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

          +19,684 /383
          Can I second this motion please??

          Now , all in favour say aye!!
          • Like Like x 4
          • globaleagle

            globaleagle Je saisis mon chapeau. Staff Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

            +13,353 /117
            peanut butter
          • StuBoot

            StuBoot Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

            +1,065 /9
            If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck chances are it's duck.

            No try any day of the week (even if Snake scored in the last minute of a GF !).

            The way players carry on these days trying to claim a try when they know they didn't is also a giveaway, I don't even think he thought he touched it.
            The ball didn't even deviate/move or show any indication that it was touched with any force.

            For them to look at it as many times as they did is a joke.
            The head on shot doesn't even look like he touches it and the side on shot looks like he may have got a pinky on the ball - try putting pressure on a moving ball with your pinky, yep, like that's not exactly impossible but.....
          • bob dylan

            bob dylan Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

            +6,440 /192
            So you are happy if that try is awarded against Manly and we lose a Grand Final?

            Fair enough.
          • StuBoot

            StuBoot Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

            +1,065 /9
            No Bob, just my phrasing was incorrect.

            No try any day of the week (even if that was Snake in the last minute of a GF, I'd still call it a no try!).
          • Daddycool08

            Daddycool08 Well-Known Member

            +372 /4
            That's a bit twisted BD.

            I looked at it and felt it was a try.

            I wonder what Manly fans would say if we had a try disallowed in similar circumstances.

            I would not be happy if that was awarded a try that lost Manly a grand-final. But I hate any try being scored against Manly anyway. We simply need to look at the Rooters grand-final of 2013. Yuck!
            • Like Like x 1
            • Disco

              Disco Well-Known Member

              +1,778 /48
              Clear no try for mine

              Can't believe people would think otherwise

            Share This Page